You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
It's not remotely on the same level as that conspiracy stuff up there ^^ but I returned home the other day to find a neatly handwritten envelope on the doormat. Inside was a full page of handwritten A4 detailing the way that the world was a product of intelligent design and used examples of tiny spiders and geckos clinging to walls by molecular forces to demonstrate that only God could create such wonders.
It then offered me a free one-to-one Bible study course.
Bloody good job the Jehovahs hadn't caught me at home with that, I might have used some of the quotes from Paul:
(How to speak to conspiracy theorists)
Worth watching if only for you're partners relationship with her sister.
Cheers, I'll have a look later.
I was at a pub in Bishop’s Castle at the weekend
Oh, which one? I used to visit BC for the beer festival (is that still going?).
returned home the other day to find a neatly handwritten envelope on the doormat.
...
Bloody good job the Jehovahs hadn’t caught me at home with that,
This seems to be a thing with the JWs. I had one once (I have a scan of it somewhere). I'm assuming there's some sort of "reward is proportional to effort" affair going on, but it seems remarkably inefficient in the 21st Century if their mission is to spread the word. I know they have some... less than mainstream ideas, but I don't recall ever seeing any holy texts that read "though shalt not subscribe to HP Instant Ink."
Found it.
Except some are true… either in whole** or mostly in part.
which bit of Flat Earth, Moon landings, Aliens at Area 51, Underground War, Q-Anon (democrats eating babies) Lizard people, 9/11 inside job, chemtrails are true or partly true in your estimation then?
I’m assuming there’s some sort of “reward is proportional to effort” affair going on, but it seems remarkably inefficient in the 21st Century if their mission is to spread the word. I know they have some… less than mainstream ideas, but I don’t recall ever seeing any holy texts that read “though shalt not subscribe to HP Instant Ink.”
Clearly the Lord wasn't involved in the intelligent design behind Ctrl+C and Ctrl+V.
I’m assuming there’s some sort of “reward is proportional to effort” affair going on
I'd assume they're human, and they've been told they have to spend so many hours a week on missionary work.
Do you:
A) Walk up and downs streets in the winter rain getting rejected in person.
B) Sit indoors, nice and warm practicing your handwriting, then do a quick letterdrop.
nickc
which bit of Flat Earth, Moon landings, Aliens at Area 51, Underground War, Q-Anon (democrats eating babies) Lizard people, 9/11 inside job, chemtrails are true or partly true in your estimation then?
It's not "in my estimation" it's fact / scientific theory or cover-ups, basically the discrepancy between what you were told and what can be established as untrue easily. The "headline" (flat earth/Moon landings etc) is initially irrelevant if you can start to prove barely relevant or even totally irrelevant lies that can be linked. Area 51 is a good example as it's provided cover for top secret projects for decades but it's also an example of "they are lying so it must be aliens".
This is how they reel in the unwary, lonely or insecure.
Here's a Sci Am thing for Flat Earth
https://www.scientificamerican.com/podcast/episode/flat-earthers-what-they-believe-and-why/
That the people who believe the world was round having these arguments didn't have cause they'd never scrutinized the idea. They rejecting it. And so what was happening was I think to a degree, the part of the schism that were just having fun and knew very well the world wasn't flat, but just enjoyed the pursuit of doing that.
They were winning those arguments with people who were coming in and arrogantly assuming that they could answer everything. And in winning those arguments, they were really converting even more people who really believed it.
So it's very difficult to explain gravity in either one of those models. But these people who were doing kind of esoteric arguments were saying, well, what is gravity? Gravity is an accelerant, falls towards the ground, I think 9.8 meters per second squared, accelerates downwards. They said that is identical to a world in which the ground accelerates upwards to meet you. And so when you let go of something, it isn't that it's accelerating downwards, it's a, the ground's actually accelerating up to meet it.
If you keep reading then
Totally. And what surprised me was I was shocked to hear this hugely influential antisemitic hoax document. Uh, the protocols, elders designer, a fake that was created to stir antisemitism. I was shocked to hear that brought up on stage at this convention where I was expecting to hear about the flat earth, but I think I was the only one who was shocked. No one else seemed to bat an eyelid. And so we do see these different conspiracy theories clustering together. And uh, I spoke to a journalist actually at the, at the convention that weekend and they were having a lovely old time interviewing people saying, Oh, isn't this fun? Isn't it silly? Said, well, it is fun, but if you really want to know what's going on, just see that couple over there with the baby. Ask them if the baby's vaccinated, ask them in that baby was ill tomorrow.
Would they go and see a doctor or would they believe that big pharma is a tool of oppression and evil and moneymaking, all this kind of stuff. You know, one of the speakers at the convention, as well as being a flat earther and as well as being a nine 11 truther also believes that you can cure all manner of diseases, including HIV and AIDS by drinking or injecting your own urine. And this is, these are ideas, these are the ideas that are sort of bedfellows. And so I think a flat earth is in some ways, it's just the most visible of a, an ecosystem of conspiracy theory. Uh, and I think if you really want to try and, uh, help people challenge their own beliefs in the flat earth, you have to see it as such. You can't see it in isolation. You have to try and look at the, the wider pattern that it fits within.
The Guardian did a good editorial about this on "lizard people" or more accurately it started with David Icke in Canada and ends up when he's been invited to 3 radio talk shows (one BBC) and then gets told they don't want him and he makes the editor uncomfortable (read the article).
To me and you (I assume) it's because he has a nuts lizard people thing... what he say's though is "it's because I'm exposing the truth" .. guess which one his fans believe. Is it TRUE he was told they don't want him? See that bit is true...
As noted in that Sci Am interview it's the mix of proving something was not true (gravity not quite working like Newton said) and then proving other claims to be true (usually in special circumstances) and when it comes down to it are aliens or lizard people actually more nutty than sky fairies and virgin births?
Clearly the Lord wasn’t involved in the intelligent design behind Ctrl+C and Ctrl+V.
Changed my life when someone first showed me the magic incantation that is Ctrl+C and Ctrl+V.
Although, her starting point is that Australians are walking around upside down, so it may take longer than usual to get to the normal level of understanding.
To be fair, it does depend on your external frame of reference…
I read that Beeb article about The Light Paper earlier - I just need a small bottle of accelerant, say some anti-viral hand wash, a quick squirt, Light Paper, step away smartly.
when it comes down to it are aliens or lizard people actually more nutty than sky fairies and virgin births?
Well if you are struggling to make a distinction between the two it might help if I point out that the geezer who came up with the Big Bang Theory, which is backed by compelling scientific evidence and is widely accepted as explaining the creation of the Universe, was a devout Catholic priest.
which bit of Flat Earth, Moon landings, Aliens at Area 51, Underground War, Q-Anon (democrats eating babies) Lizard people, 9/11 inside job, chemtrails are true or partly true in your estimation then?
MK Ultra is one that immediately springs to mind.
It's about the only one isn't it?
How to go from reality to fun crazy to scary crazy in five easy steps
It’s about the only one isn’t it?
But it wasn't one of the conspiracy theories which you listed.
There is a huge fundamental difference between conspiracy theories involving shape changing reptiles and chemtrails, and conspiracy theories involving governments and political parties etc.
That some conspiracy theories turn out to be true should not surprise anyone, human beings have conspired and engaged in conspiracies throughout history.
As Alexei Sayle has pointed out, that is why the word "conspiracy" exists in the English language.
Well if you are struggling to make a distinction between the two it might help if I point out that the geezer who came up with the Big Bang Theory, which is backed by compelling scientific evidence and is widely accepted as explaining the creation of the Universe, was a devout Catholic priest.
That's the point, there is no distinction to the conspiracies, only to the individuals and their ability to lie to themselves (assuming Lemaitre actually believed in sky fairies and such and not more of a David Jenkins "conjuring trick with bones").
The big bang theory despite the holes and inconsistencies is still "the best" theory we have hence it's likely to have occurred "something like" that or at least "something like that from our perspective". It neither requires nor precludes a super-being or race of super-beings being involved but it does exclude either of the creation myths in Genesis in any literal sense and in order to accept the proofs the literal 6000yr old earth/universe has to be soundly put aside.
At the other end is something like transubstantiation where every scientific method known will prove beyond any doubt its bread and wine before and after or young earth creationists.
At one end its believing in something simply because it can't be proven not to exist and at the other its believing in something that can be proven to be false but most is in the middle.
What is really the difference between some technologically advanced aliens and believing in angels?
But it wasn’t one of the conspiracy theories which you listed.
There is a huge fundamental difference between conspiracy theories involving shape changing reptiles and chemtrails, and conspiracy theories involving governments and political parties etc.
That some conspiracy theories turn out to be true should not surprise anyone, human beings have conspired and engaged in conspiracies throughout history.
As Alexei Sayle has pointed out, that is why the word “conspiracy” exists in the English language.
They nearly all have some truths... even something like chemtrails has a truth aspect to it as weather experiments etc. can and do take place.
The basis behind all of them is sowing doubt over some "facts" you have been told by some authoritative figure.
That false fact barely needs to be related in many cases as it's simply a gateway.
This is why there is a large overlap between conspiracies, once you establish "scientists are lying" or "government are lying" the conspiracy leaders can dismiss anything and everything from "scientists" or "governments".
What is really the difference between some technologically advanced aliens and believing in angels?
Because most of the major religions have doctrine and set of morals attached, and belief in Aliens doesn't?
I don't think it's as simple in saying "These two things have no proof, but people believe them ergo they are the same". I think a good proportion Catholics don't believe that the wafer is literally transformed into the body of Christ, but I'd suggest that lots (most? All?) of Ickes supporters really do think there are Lizard aliens walking amongst us. the difference is the moral philosophy and a shared set of communal activities, I'm a very secular Jew, I still light candles on Friday and there's a Mezuzah on the door, others get married in the pretty church on the green, or have Buddhist funerals.
virgin births?
FWIW, Mary wasn't originally described as a virgin. When the original Hebrew bibles were translated into Greek back in the day, the Hebrew word for 'unmarried woman' was mistranslated into the Greek word for 'virgin', and then that was later translated into Latin, and etc etc.
See this from the Rev Giles Fraser
When the original Hebrew bibles were translated into Greek back in the day, the Hebrew word for ‘unmarried woman’ was mistranslated into the Greek word for ‘virgin’, and then that was later translated into Latin, and etc etc.
Completely off topic but that ^^ is very true. And it still causes problems today with different versions of the bible.
Isaiah 7:14 is a classic example with some versions of the bible today refering to a "young woman" and others refering to a virgin.
Although in the case of Isaiah 7:14 I don't think it was an unmarried woman but the wife of King Ahaz.
That doesn't really apply to Mary though as all Christian denominations as far as I am aware, except possibly extremely low Anglicans, fully accept her virginity as it deals with the issue of 'original sin'.
If you believe that Jesus Christ rose from the dead and was the Son of God then stuff like virgin births isn't going to be an issue. In the case of ultra-low Anglicans I'm not convinced that they all necessarily believe in God, I think the attraction is probably that it's the established church and taking your children to church on Sunday mornings has middle-class appeal.
assuming Lemaitre actually believed in sky fairies
Yeah he remained a priest all his life, and his Big Bang Theory was/is accepted by the Catholic church, you need to have a significant devotion to sky fairies to be a Catholic priest.
Because most of the major religions have doctrine and set of morals attached, and belief in Aliens doesn’t?
many of the "alien" ones do have "morals" attached at some level or another.
There are a whole bunch of "aliens were warning us of ...."
I don’t think it’s as simple in saying “These two things have no proof, but people believe them ergo they are the same”. I think a good proportion Catholics don’t believe that the wafer is literally transformed into the body of Christ, but I’d suggest that lots (most? All?) of Ickes supporters really do think there are Lizard aliens walking amongst us. the difference is the moral philosophy and a shared set of communal activities, I’m a very secular Jew, I still light candles on Friday and there’s a Mezuzah on the door, others get married in the pretty church on the green, or have Buddhist funerals.
I don't think any of the Icke supporters START OFF like that and it is to an extent the same but inverse process of being a secular jew.
You can pick and choose what you choose to believe and don't, what is literal and what is symbolic etc. you don't I assume go around stoning people or genociding peoples or believe the world is a literal 6000yrs old.
Conspiracy theorists are just picking from a smorgasbord and like major religions there is a whole raft of degrees and levels. If we put aside the matrilineal aspect then like other religions you are jewish because your parents are and you were brought up that way and you see some personal value in continuing the parts you subscribe to and ignoring the ones you don't. (and a proportion of parents friends were probably etc. etc.)
Most conspiracy theorists are going in the other direction ... they are rejecting some parts of what they were told was true and replacing it with something else.
The key here lies in the way they are manipulated. Rather than starting out with the "this is what everyone believes so it must be true" they are starting with this is what you were told and it's false.
The reptiles/aliens/mind control chips all come later...
The full on Icke stuff is the "fundamentalist" or "radicalised" version .. neither he nor his believers jumped in both feet on that.
The common factor for making this first step almost regardless of the end-point is prove a trusted source lied, the aim is not to get them to believe in lizard people but to discredit parents, teachers, scientists, government spokespeople.
Where possible these will be linked to a direction but they don't need to be.
As an example if the Smithsonian had 1c for every time the "Stages of man" / "March of Progress" graphic has been quoted by young earthers I doubt they'd ever need funding again.
"Show me a monkey giving birth to a human" .. and various derivations of.
Frankly I'm shocked it's (still in) any text books even in the USA but perhaps it's fundy teachers slipping it in OR they actually don't need to because its out there and they can just pretend??
I was equally shocked hearing Dawkins saying that (sic) scientists should never have said the vaccine would prevent covid 100%... I certainly don't remember that so perhaps he's referring to other countries. He could be mistaken of course ... the point though really is even in the UK the "government" didn't make it very clear and they certainly seemed happy to ley people believe that.. You don't need a degree in social sciences to work out that after a single person did contract covid after vaccine that would be all you needed for the deniers'
** I'll jump back here ***
I think a good proportion Catholics don’t believe that the wafer is literally transformed into the body of Christ
Oh, I agree which is why I said most is in-between.
The literal virgin birth or literal resurrection or literal burning bush. (merely sticking to NT)
Because most of the major religions have doctrine and set of morals attached
As a fairly secular jew you can pick and choose... you don't have to pick the genocidal parts or mass slaughter ones you can decide they are a fable/parable or symbolic and you can pick and choose a bit how literal or how much you believe
If you look into flat earth as an example there are many different "churches" with differing doctrines.
Infinite plane vs disk around the arctic vs biblical pillars - there are "great floods" or not... are the other planets real or not.. fall of the edge vs ?? A dome vs space exists...
So the only commonality really is "it's flat" which is itself a point of reference from a human aspect based on 3 spatial dimensions and time. The shape is a bit irrelevant if you were a alien/super-being looking with say gravity as a frame of reference in which case it's nearly "flat"
Different "flat earthers" believe different parts... most flat earthers subscribe to other conspiracies as well.
This is where it ** jumps back **
This is where the conspiracy theories jump back... once the "victims" are isolated and convinced "authority" is lying they become part of marginalised groups and echo chambers.
Ernie
Yeah he remained a priest all his life, and his Big Bang Theory was/is accepted by the Catholic church, you need to have a significant devotion to sky fairies to be a Catholic priest.
You certainly need to support them, that doesn't mean you actually believe in them when your employer requires you say you do. More to the point perhaps is he may or may not have believed there is some guiding consciousness that might as well be called god or alien .. or he might or might not have believed more doctrine.
To give an analogy, I'm sure not all faith healers/tarot readers/ouji thingy practitioners actually BELEIVE.
If you believe that Jesus Christ rose from the dead and was the Son of God then stuff like virgin births isn’t going to be an issue. In the case of ultra-low Anglicans I’m not convinced that they all necessarily believe in God, I think the attraction is probably that it’s the established church and taking your children to church on Sunday mornings has middle-class appeal.
I don't think it's a special case for ultra-low Anglicans .. or that it's specific to christian sects or "traditional religions". Many flat earthers seem to be just in it for the community... something to belong to and being part of a special club.
Plenty of flat earthers also believe in mutually exclusive (in detail) things as well.
As the penalty has decreased so more people are more honest.
If the penalty is being burned alive any sensible non believer is just going to go with not being burned alive - you would need something else to really believe in to pick being burned alive.
If the penalty is not being invited to the fete it's a different matter.
Just want to comment on this, mentioned a couple of times:
... a secular jew.
You can pick and choose what you choose to believe and don’t, what is literal and what is symbolic etc. you don’t I assume go around stoning people or genociding peoples or believe the world is a literal 6000yrs old.
Religious/orthodox Jews (hi!) also don't go around doing/believing that, at least not necessarily always in a literal manner. People reading some line in the Old Testament and assuming that every traditional religion takes that as, um, gospel and then assuming that they all believe in sky fairies is simplistic to the point of being insulting. Not aiming that at anyone in particular 🙂
But I do have my own space laser 😉
Really good show on Radio 4 about the nutters behind the paper.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m001mssm/episodes/downloads
You certainly need to support them, that doesn’t mean you actually believe in them when your employer requires you say you do.
LOL! You are desperate to believe that George Lemaitre might have bee an atheist 😂
As well as being a Catholic priest he was a theoretical physicist, mathematician, astronomer, and professor of physics. The idea that he was possibly guilty of a huge fraud, ie being a devout and practicing Catholic priest despite not even believing in God, or sky fairies to use your preferred term of ridicule, is clearly nonsense.
Whatever your veiws on his religion it is obvious that George Lemaitre was driven by a deep desire to seek the truth, as he saw it. You can be confident that he personally believed everything that he claimed to believe.
But I do have my own space laser
I await with baited breath every morning in the hope that the postie will bring the letter that tells me it's my turn to run world politics, the media, corporations I literally cannot wait. I do wonder if the cabal at the centre of it all have the wrong address for me though...
It must be a conspiracy etc etc...
I await with baited breath every morning in the hope that the postie will bring the letter that tells me it’s my turn to run world politics, the media, corporations I literally cannot wait. I do wonder if the cabal at the centre of it all have the wrong address for me though…
Not enough baby blood in your diet. Also you need to be richer.
Don't worry, they're watching you through your phone and vaccine microchip, you'll be contacted when it's time...
Religious/orthodox Jews (hi!) also don’t go around doing/believing that, at least not necessarily always in a literal manner. People reading some line in the Old Testament and assuming that every traditional religion takes that as, um, gospel and then assuming that they all believe in sky fairies is simplistic to the point of being insulting. Not aiming that at anyone in particular
that's exactly thing thing with conspiracy theorists...
not all** flat earther's believe the whole kaboodle and there are even different "churches" of doctrine.
**There isn't even a single doctrine .. the only real tenet is believing or at least professing that the earth is flat.
and then assuming that they all believe in sky fairies is simplistic to the point of being insulting
So if someone subscribes to a religion (or conspiracy) but doesn't believe the "core tenet" of some magical being who created everything (or the world is actually flat in cartesian space) what's the difference ???
I'm not knocking the tradition, sense of community or the 10 commandments being a generally decent thing... but if they don't actually believe in some supernatural super-being then the belief thing is just an aside.
This is not (very) different to what conspiracy theories provide.
A sense of community .. some basic rules like "only trust what you can see for yourself" being a popular one.
LOL! You are desperate to believe that George Lemaitre might have bee an atheist 😂
I don't really care, I'm more concerned that just because he had a job as a priest anyone would think that means he believed in a super being.
As well as being a Catholic priest he was a theoretical physicist, mathematician, astronomer, and professor of physics. The idea that he was possibly guilty of a huge fraud, ie being a devout and practicing Catholic priest despite not even believing in God, or sky fairies to use your preferred term of ridicule, is clearly nonsense.
Huh ??
Why wouldn't he just profess a belief if it was expedient?
It's a multi-level thing anyway.
In the belief or not in some vengeful omnipotent being waiting to punish those who don't follow what they dictate then non-belief in that entity means there is no vengeful omnipotent being
This idea that an atheists must be scared of what a vengeful omnipotent being is going to do to them is a distinctly theist precept.
At a different level .. as others have mentioned being an adherent of a religion doesn't mean all adherents believe all aspects nor does it mean he didn't for example think that traditions and values are not enough to continue to support something.
David Jenkins was a Bishop... or does that not count because he was the wrong flavour of christianity?
Whatever your veiws on his religion it is obvious that George Lemaitre was driven by a deep desire to seek the truth, as he saw it. You can be confident that he personally believed everything that he claimed to believe.
To take an example .. Do you really think that as a priest giving communion and telling people they are literally receiving the body and blood of christ he actually believed that?
Do you really think that as a priest giving communion and telling people they are literally receiving the body and blood of christ he actually believed that?
Of course he did. Do you not understand what being a Catholic priest actually involves?
I have no idea why you believe that Georges Lemaitre might have been living a lie, I have never heard anyone else suggest that he wasn't a devout Catholic priest, although presumably it is because you can't quite reconcile the fact that someone with a brilliant mind should believe in an omnipotent being.
At 29 years of age Lemaitre became a priest fairly late in life, ie he wasn't sent off to the seminary at a very young age. He became a highly respected scientist, he could have left the priesthood any time he wanted, he certainly didn't need the Catholic church to pay his wages.
Catholics priests don't receive wages as such and his life as a priest would have meant that it would have been very simple and frugal. As an ordinary academic he would have been far better off financially.
And as a priest he would have almost certainly have said mass on a daily basis, to answer your original question.
Btw I believe that the term "big bang theory" was originally used to ridicule Lemaitre. It might seem a perfectly reasonable way to describe his theory today but when Lemaitre first suggested his theory the term was apparently used by his detractors. Presumably by people like you who thought he was a bit of a nutter 😉
Lemaitre is a brilliant name too. He certainly lived up to it.
Of course he did. Do you not understand what being a Catholic priest actually involves?
I find the idea that Lemaitre believed that bread and wine very literally turned into flesh and blood beyond ridiculous.
Even the pope acknowledges this isn't true now.
Do you not understand what being a Catholic priest actually involves?
I'm trying to be polite and you obviously don't want the answer to that.
So if someone subscribes to a religion (or conspiracy) but doesn’t believe the “core tenet” of some magical being who created everything (or the world is actually flat in cartesian space) what’s the difference ???
I’m not knocking the tradition, sense of community or the 10 commandments being a generally decent thing… but if they don’t actually believe in some supernatural super-being then the belief thing is just an aside.
I never said everything about religion has to be 100% provable science... simply that just because someone believes in a "supernatural super-being" doesn't mean they ignore modern science, and that they can be compatible.
(Note I am never very good at arguing any point and getting my meaning across, this doesn't necessarily mean the point is not valid and that someone else wouldn't do a better job! In short: don't jump to conclusions about a massive complicated subject about which you may have very little actual understanding.)
presumably it is because you can’t quite reconcile the fact that someone with a brilliant mind should believe in an omnipotent being
My FiL is a religious Jew and a professor of physics who also manages computer science & security at his country's equivalent of CERN... intelligence has nothing to do with it, it's not only stupid people like me who believe in fairies 😉
I find the idea that Lemaitre believed that bread and wine very literally turned into flesh and blood beyond ridiculous.
Even the pope acknowledges this isn’t true now.
I'm trying to be polite too but you frankly don't understand Catholic teaching. Of course the Pope believes in transubstantiation, it is absolutely central to Catholic teaching.
Next you will be asking if I believe that the Pope is a Catholic 😊
Lemaitre, the man who came up with the now widely accepted theory of how the Universe was created, was a devout Catholic priest, get over it, or not, as might be the case.
Terrifying.
Less terrifying when it seems the numbers dont add up, though anyone believing such twaddle is a worry...
https://twitter.com/EdmundGriffiths/status/1668547152551849984?t=b8-ir2R4FkperfN8wbyx7g&s=19
I find the idea that Lemaitre believed that bread and wine very literally turned into flesh and blood beyond ridiculous.
This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent Being. [...] This Being governs all things, not as the soul of the world, but as Lord over all; and on account of his dominion he is wont to be called "Lord God" παντοκρατωρ [pantokratōr], or "Universal Ruler". [...] The Supreme God is a Being eternal, infinite, [and] absolutely perfect
so said Issac Newton. Principia is dedicated to essentially working out the Maths that God must use to make the universe work. I find that idea that you think these people didn't understand fully that their God existed and guided their hand beyond ridiculous. (and just a wee bit arrogant)
Who made god?
Now you're just trying to pick a fight 😉
Moi? 😁
It's a valid question though, isn't it? If "god" is the answer to "where did stuff come from?" then all we've done is displaced the problem elsewhere. The universe cannot possibly be "eternal and infinite" therefore in order to explain it there must be a god who totally can be. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
My FiL is a religious Jew and a professor of physics who also manages computer science & security at his country’s equivalent of CERN… intelligence has nothing to do with it, it’s not only stupid people like me who believe in fairies 😉
I have an aunt is who is both a young earth creationist and a head of science at a (well regarded) school 🤷♂️ people are wierd
One of the most intelligent people I ever knew - a genuine polymath whose idea of fun was "for absolutely no reason other than I'm at a loose end this weekend, I think I'll go and learn Russian" - was a practising Christian. I asked him how he rationalised that and he told me he put it in a box marked "Other." Like, over here is physics and over there is something else.
I have an aunt is who is both a young earth creationist and a head of science at a (well regarded) school
Where, in the United States?
No UK state school would allow a science teacher to teach creationism. I doubt that an independent school would be allowed to. Certainly not as a science.
The Catholic church's position on Genesis is that it is a "fable", it can be taught only to convey a message, to tell a story to provide a lesson or morality.
No UK state school would allow a science teacher to teach creationism
Wasn't there a bit of a To Do when it was discovered that some Academies ( I want to say in the North East, but I could be wrong) were teaching it? This would 've been early noughties though I think.
No UK state school would allow a science teacher to teach creationism.
The poster you're replying to didn't say they were teaching it.
No they didn't. I assumed that they were as it made it more relevant to what was being discussed.
Edit: It would also mean that the head of science in a well regarded school was teaching stuff which she didn't believe.
Not exactly a solid foundation for a well regarded school.
Our assumptions differ, then.
Does it matter? Science doesn't require belief, the facts don't change based on the opinions of the teacher. (Of course, if they're teaching Creationism in a Science class then that's problematic, but that's a scenario of your own assumption.)
Arguably the same could be true of an RE teacher if the lessons are "Christians believe X whereas Muslims believe Y," the teacher potentially believing that it's all nonsense is neither here nor there.
Schools have curriculums that they had to follow, last I knew.
Arguably the same could be true of an RE teacher if the lessons are “Christians believe X whereas Muslims believe Y,” the teacher potentially believing that it’s all nonsense is neither here nor there.
We had a mix of very good / interesting and truly shite RE teachers.
The very good ones taught about the different religions, histories, beliefs etc while the very bad ones put on a lot of videos. One we watched over the course of about 4 lessons was a 2hr "documentary" about Nostradamus from the point of view of proving he was a genius, could tell the future, how many of his predictions had come true and so on.
We had a Jehovah's Witness girl in our class who was excused RE lessons, the school assembly (which was a predominantly Christian affair with a hymn and sometimes a short parable from the school chaplain) and she also refused to attend any biology classes about evolution or sex education.
Schools have curriculums that they had to follow, last I knew.
You are somewhat out of date if you mean the national curriculum.
Academies dont have to so thats an ever increasing number of kids.
The poster you’re replying to didn’t say they were teaching it.
Correct. They didn't mix their personal beliefs with the day job.
I asked him how he rationalised that and he told me he put it in a box marked “Other.” Like, over here is physics and over there is something else.
Yes, my aunt said something similar, science says world old, and that number goes in the science box. (her interpretation of) Bible says world young, that number goes in the faith box. She believed the numbers in the faith box, but taught the numbers in the science box. Seemed bonkers to me. Lots of things that woman, but not a fool. Like i said, people are weird!
You are somewhat out of date if you mean the national curriculum.
Right. Dunno, I left high school in the late 80s, I believed that what they're expected to teach was mandated.
We had a Jehovah’s Witness girl in our class who was excused RE lessons, the school assembly (which was a predominantly Christian affair with a hymn and sometimes a short parable from the school chaplain) and she also refused to attend any biology classes about evolution or sex education.
Different times. I'd have loved to have been able to skip RE and assembly being a devout atheist.
Religious privilege gets right on my nipples. RE is - well, should be - religious EDUCATION not doctrine. Whatever your beliefs (or whatever beliefs you've been told to believe by your family) there shouldn't be a harm in learning what other people think. I learned about WWII at school, it didn't make me a Nazi. Teachings of faith belong in a church / mosque / synagogue etc.
Seemed bonkers to me.
What I find strange is that a school where the head of the science department taught subjects which she didn't personally believe we're factually true was "well regarded".
So when her pupils asked her questions she basically (in her opinion) lied to them?
I am struggling to believe that she was a particularly good teacher although I don't doubt that she got away with it.
And what a poor commitment to her religious beliefs - to deny on a daily basis that she has them.
people are weird!
Well yes, some certainly are!
So when her pupils asked her questions she basically (in her opinion) lied to them? ... And what a poor commitment to her religious beliefs – to deny on a daily basis that she has them.
We could go back to what was said about similar people - scientists with faith - they might have two compartments within their mind; one for ideas about faith, another for ideas about science... We're bigger than our ideas about the world <more than just the sum of our parts>. Both concerned with what we don't know. One thing I do know, we don't know anything about this person so seems rather futile and argumentative to assume anything about them whatsoever.
Different times. I’d have loved to have been able to skip RE and assembly being a devout atheist.
I was at secondary school early 90's. Also an atheist, but did RE GCSE because the alternative was geography and I hated that.
RE GCSE was great. It was structured around different topics and how a selection of different religions respond to that topic. We'd also pick out bits of the various texts and see how that related to modern life.
It wasn't in any way teaching us that this is the Bible and this is fact.
If anything, it reinforced my atheism tbh.
Gone a bit off topic, what's on the front page of the "The Light!?" 😉
I never said everything about religion has to be 100% provable science… simply that just because someone believes in a “supernatural super-being” doesn’t mean they ignore modern science, and that they can be compatible.
(Note I am never very good at arguing any point and getting my meaning across, this doesn’t necessarily mean the point is not valid and that someone else wouldn’t do a better job! In short: don’t jump to conclusions about a massive complicated subject about which you may have very little actual understanding.)
You don't need to argue it well... my real point is there is little or no difference between believing in something with no proof that is simply a product of your upbringing and most conspiracy theories. The existence or not of supernatural beings is slightly separate in it's proving the non existence.
Cougar
Who made god?
It’s a valid question though, isn’t it? If “god” is the answer to “where did stuff come from?” then all we’ve done is displaced the problem elsewhere. The universe cannot possibly be “eternal and infinite” therefore in order to explain it there must be a god who totally can be.
To put that simply if an alien race created our universe from some other dimension is that gods or their elected leader or whomever a God? What would be the difference? It doesn't solve infinite regression
Proving the non existence of something mythical is not possible but the other examples are where something can be proven not to be true such as transubstantiation where bread and wine is LITERALLY transformed into flesh and blood.
My FiL is a religious Jew and a professor of physics who also manages computer science & security at his country’s equivalent of CERN… intelligence has nothing to do with it, it’s not only stupid people like me who believe in fairies
Let's take a step back... so 'aliens taught how to build the pyramids' .. (popular conspiracy)
What is the "nature" of god for you're FiL?? Is it a supreme being who created the universe and to whom we therefore owe some respect and tradition or does he really believe Moses lived to 400 and the walls of Jericho literally fell with a trumpet and carrying a box round them? etc.
Ernielynch
I’m trying to be polite too but you frankly don’t understand Catholic teaching. Of course the Pope believes in transubstantiation, it is absolutely central to Catholic teaching.
The previous Pope allowed gluten free host and so far as I know that hasn't been overturned.
Either it's hypocrisy OR transubstantiation is not literal to them.
we don’t know anything about this person
Well yes we do, hence the comment. We know that this person was apparently a creationist who was the head of a science department in a well regarded school. And we are told that she apparently didn't teach creationism to her students. What she taught her students she must have therefore have perceived to be a lie.
The previous Pope allowed gluten free host and so far as I know that hasn’t been overturned.
😊 Yeah I don't think the Catholic church claims that when Christ said to apostles at the Last Supper take this for it is my body and blood which will be given up for the forgiveness of sins that they are claiming he actually gave them each a piece of his flesh.
If you believe that God is an all-powerful omnipotent being then appearing in the form of a gluten free host isn't going to be a problem.
Georges Lemaitre was a devout Catholic priest who believed in transubstantiation and came up with the Big Bang Theory. It might not sit comfortably with your preferred narrative but that is the fact.
And if you are unhappy about that you will be gutted when you hear about the person they call "the father of modern genetics".
my real point is there is little or no difference between believing in something with no proof that is simply a product of your upbringing and most conspiracy theories.
So you keep saying. Saying the same thing over and over doesn't make it any more than just your opinion.
Article on Radio4 yesterday and this morning about The Light - only caught a few minutes.
We know that this person was apparently a creationist who was the head of a science department in a well regarded school. And we are told that she apparently didn’t teach creationism to her students. What she taught her students she must have therefore have perceived to be a lie.
What is creationism? That the world popped into existence over 6 days? Or that the 6 days is not to be taken literally and God created the world using natural mechanisms (including evolution) over millions of years, equivalent to 6 days in some spiritual/metaphysical sense?
It's not a simple answer, I once read a great book (by a religious Jewish rabbi) going into this in detail.
Suffice to say she did not necessarily have to be teaching a lie.
What is the “nature” of god for you’re FiL?? Is it a supreme being who created the universe and to whom we therefore owe some respect and tradition or does he really believe Moses lived to 400 and the walls of Jericho literally fell with a trumpet and carrying a box round them? etc.
Moses lived to 120 😉
Again, various levels of taking it literally, but yes the basis is something like "don't take it literally, but believe that it could be literal and that is one explanation".
we don’t know anything about this person
Well yes we do, hence the comment
My point was we don't know enough about the teacher to surmise they're a bad at their job, that they lie everyday to their pupils and themselves, that their faith is not strong, and the school must not be reputable for continuing to employ them!!!!!!
Article on Radio4 yesterday and this morning about The Light – only caught a few minutes.
Marianna in Conspiracyland
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m001mssm
What is creationism? That the world popped into existence over 6 days?
Yeah that one. That is the widely recognised definition of a creationist. If the person in question believed that the world was created over billion of years then it would have been pointless to even mention her, it is generally a given that science teachers accept that the world was formed over billions of years.
My point was we don’t know enough about the teacher to surmise they’re a bad at their job
No one has claimed that she was bad at her job. The point I was making is that I am struggling to believe that she was particularly good at it. I can't but think that teachers who actually believe what they are teaching probably make better teachers. Would you have much confidence in a physics teacher that didn't believe in gravity?
Yes, young earth creationist as in thinks the world is ~6k years old.
All 'well regarded' really means in this context is 'gets good exam results, does well at OFSTED inspections'. Given she was (now retired) senior member of the team that got those results, she couldn't have been too bad at her job at least in that narrow sense. I don't think she would have thought that she was teaching a lie either. She'd say that when science and her reglion conflict, she believes the science to be 'valid', but the religion to be 'correct'. That was mainly evolution and big bang etc - that leaves a lot of science to teach without conflict. She would be able to explain plenty of methods to date the earth for example, and what the outputs of of those methods are (>>> 6k years). But she'd be equally able to put those outputs in the bin because jeebus.
To bring the conversation full circle, her husband (my dads brother) is an avid reader of The Light. We've lost touch with them now, he became too difficult to deal with, constantly ranting about jews running the world etc.
nickc
This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent Being. […] This Being governs all things, not as the soul of the world, but as Lord over all; and on account of his dominion he is wont to be called “Lord God” παντοκρατωρ [pantokratōr], or “Universal Ruler”. […] The Supreme God is a Being eternal, infinite, [and] absolutely perfect
so said Issac Newton. Principia is dedicated to essentially working out the Maths that God must use to make the universe work. I find that idea that you think these people didn’t understand fully that their God existed and guided their hand beyond ridiculous. (and just a wee bit arrogant)
Unless you subscribe the the conspiracy theory that his diaries are faked and the dating of the ink and paper and handwriting analysis is a conspiracy then whatever Newton said about religion in public was because he preferred not to have a Christian execution and be burned alive for heresy. He was also a practicing alchemist which also carried a capital sentence if less brutal than the Christian one.
Whatever god he perceived may or may not exist was most certainly not the Christian one
What is it with Jews? Why is antisemitism even a thing?
I'd like to think I'm reasonably intelligent but there are some frankly embarrassingly large holes in my knowledge. Like the whole "troubles" in Northern Ireland, two different schisms of Christianity blowing each other up because they worship the same god in slightly different ways. I'm sure it's far more complex than that but I don't get it, I never have. But that's probably another thread.
Similarly, I have no doubt that "it's complicated" but the Jewish seem to be a weird demographic to hate. I genuinely don't understand. I have a couple of friends who are Jewish, they're lovely. I cannot get behind ritual genital surgery on infants and half of what she posts on Facebook might as well be in a foreign language, but other than that what's to dislike? Is that it, it's a different culture so it's Othering? She spends most of her time baking and knitting. Those evil, evil cakes.
I'm not far from North Manchester which has a thriving community of Orthodox Jews. You have to wear black and can't cut your hair? Where do I sign?
Whatever Newton said about religion in public was because
...he believed in it. Honestly, he really did.
I understand that that may be inconceivable to you, but making up history becasue the truth doesn't (or cant) fit your world view, is a wild take.
What is it with Jews? Why is antisemitism even a thing?
You know that bit in the Bible, where you finish one half and you turn the last page of Malachi, and it says "New Testament"?
That.
What is creationism? That the world popped into existence over 6 days?
what they said was ...
a young earth creationist
This specifically means the universe popped into existence over 6 days 6,000 years ago and god (or devil) created fossils and all dating methods that proved differently at the same time.
…he believed in it. Honestly, he really did.
Then why did he write tens of thousands of pages to the contrary ?
Do you actually believe his diaries are real or do you think they are a fake or something ???
Then why did he write tens of thousands of pages to the contrary ?
He believed in the Biblical God. However you want to spin it to fit your narrative, that is pretty much the start middle and finish of it.
You know that bit in the Bible, where you finish one half and you turn the last page of Malachi, and it says “New Testament”?
Not really, no.
I thought we'd all dismissed the OT as "yeah, oops, what were we thinking" now anyway?
I went to college with Malachi. True story.
What is it with Jews? Why is antisemitism even a thing?
You know that bit in the Bible, where you finish one half and you turn the last page of Malachi, and it says “New Testament”?
That.
Eh? The Old Testament is full of stuff about the persecution of Jews. Don't tell me that you are unaware of the Assyrian captivity, Babylonian exile, or Seleucid Empire?
Have a butchers at the Book of Exodus and Moses and enslavement in Egypt, it's quite famous! Also the Book of Daniel which is set in the 6th century BC and whose central message is that God will deliver Israel from oppression.
I've got 4 days driving someone around at work next week who is deep into the rabbit hole
Is his name Warren?
Oh, well done that man! 🎩🎯
two different schisms of Christianity blowing each other up because they worship the same god in slightly different ways.
Just don’t get started on the convoluted factions of Islam who have been happily slaughtering each other for centuries because they can’t agree on which members of their prophets family has the right to be head of the faith.
Their name isn't Warren and I never said they were a he. ,😜
They're an otherwise nice enough person until they get started on 5g, and controlling governments, vaccines, cashless societies.
factions of Islam who have been happily slaughtering each other for centuries
How many centuries of peace has Europe had? Whilst religion is often used as an excuse it rarely is the reason for wars, the quest for power and wealth is.
The Ottoman Empire, which btw welcomed Jews that were expelled from Europe due to religious hatred, lived much of its 600 year history in relative peace.
Indeed that fact played a significant part in the Ottoman Empire's eventual downfall - whilst Europeans were in a constant state of war, either with each other or with other people across the globe, the relative peace that Islamic Empire enjoyed meant that its military fell behind that of warmongering European states, leading to its eventual downfall and European conquest/control.
I would be interested in any evidence that Muslim countries have a greater predisposition to go to war with each other than non-Muslim countries.
Indeed that fact played a significant part in the Ottoman Empire’s eventual downfall –
Shame its about as accurate as claiming Newton wasnt a believer.
The Ottoman Empire was an extremely aggressive empire for over half of its existence waging continued wars of expansion as well as an aggressive slave trading policy.
This only halted when the states it was attacking started to become modern states especially Russia and Austria.
The only real period of peace was a few years when it had been pushed back but the other countries were consolidating.
After that it was on the back foot.
Whatever god he perceived may or may not exist was most certainly not the Christian one
All his views were based on the Christian bible. Admittedly some of his private opinions were rather unorthodox and even heretical in the eyes of some other Christians but he was definitely a believer in a version of the Christian god.